Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's Internal Advice About Patents

Posted by timothy on from the had-that-idea-first dept.

BigPoppaT writes "Eric Brechner writes a best practices blog called Hard Code for Microsoft under the name I.M. Wright. His most recent post sounds like an endorsement of open source development (and does end with a call for Microsoft developers to participate in the shared source community). But even better is his advice regarding patents: 'When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help), and never search, view, or speculate about patents. I was confused by this guidance till I wrote and reviewed one of my own patents. The legal claims section--the only section that counts--was indecipherable by anyone but a patent attorney. Ignorance is bliss and strongly recommended when it comes to patents.' Interesting advice from inside Microsoft. I wonder if Ballmer would agree that ignorance should be 'strongly recommended when it comes to patents'?"

6 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. what exactly is strongly recommended? by v1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if Ballmer would agree that ignorance should be 'strongly recommended when it comes to patents'?"

    Makes you wonder if they think that constitutes "plausible deniability"?

    Your honor, you see, we can't possibly have knowingly broken the law, we have a company policy of delibrate ignorance."

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:what exactly is strongly recommended? by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your honor, you see, we can't possibly have knowingly broken the law, we have a company policy of delibrate ignorance."

      That seems to sum up pretty much the entirety of their strategies in all of their markets, so yeah, I'd believe that.

  2. Re:Treble damages by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Generally, I believe that if you are aware of prior art, you're liable for treble (triple) damages.

    Well, that's the trouble with trebles.

    Should you, by some chance, become aware of related patents, you can dismiss the treble problem by beaming them over to Redmond.

    What? Like 90% of slashdot considers Microsoft to be far worse than the Klingons anyway.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  3. Re:How Pointless is That? by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Funny

    He doesn't know what he's talking about. Any random Slashdot poster can understand any arbitrarily complex patent and explain why it's invalid because a common household item is prior art.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  4. Re:Treble damages by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

    One of things I have found in my career is that ignorance is an excellent strategy. Ignorant people aren't asked to work evenings and weekends because they fuck shit up. That means more free time to play FPS games, sniff petrol and argue on the Internet.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  5. I. M. Wright? by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this person by any chance know U. R. Rong?